Settlements made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are binding for agreed periods and cannot be reopened unilaterally.

1. By this petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the decision of the Industrial Tribunal given on a preliminary objection in an industrial reference. The short facts leading to this reference are as follows:

2. The petitioner is doing laundry business in partnership. It employs about eight hundred workers in different departments and different branches. An industrial dispute was raised by a section of the workers regarding the scales of pay, classification, dearness allowance etc. and the said dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 195 of 1962. A similar dispute was raised by other section of the workers of the said firm and it was referred to the Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 12 of 1963. At this time the Union which took up the cause of the workers was the Laundry Mazdoor Sabha. Thereafter, another Union sprang up called the Bombay General Employees Association. This Association made applications for making it a party to the References. Accordingly, this Association also was made a party to the said References. The usual procedure in the Reference was followed. No other worker or Union appeared during the conduct of the References. Thereafter settlements were arrived at in both the References between the petitioner and the Unions. The settlements were signed by the employer and the representative of each of the Unions in each of the References. They also appear to have been signed by the counsel for the workmen as shown by the annexures to the present petition. By these settlements all matters which were then pending before the Tribunal including some others were settled. The settlements were filed on October 22, 1964. The Tribunal after stating the demands etc. made the following order by paragraph 4 of its award dated November 2, 1964 in Reference No. 195 of 1962:
"In the result I make an award in terms of the settlement marked as Annexure 'P', so far as it relates to the subject matter of the Reference." Similarly, in the other Reference after reciting the demands the Tribunal says:
"At the stage of the hearing there has been a settlement between the parties and accordingly they have submitted an agreement. I accept the same.
In the result I make an award in terms of the agreement marked as Annexure 'K'".
To both these awards the agreements were annexed as required by law. The awards and the annexures were then forwarded to the State Government.

3. The present Union, respondent No. 2, which came on the scene later, by its notices terminated the first award on February 14, 1966 and the second award on May 22, 1966. Thereafter, it submitted fresh demands on October 5, 1966. These demands related to dearness allowance and increase in piece rate payment with retrospective effect. This dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by Reference (IT) No. 306 of 1967.

4. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the settlements entered into between the parties and which became the subject - matter of the awards are binding for the periods stated in the settlements and they cannot be reopened under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . The Tribunal decided this contention as a preliminary objection and answered it against the petitioner on the ground that an award binds the parties only for a year. The petitioner now comes to this Court.

5. The relevant sections in this connection of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are as below:
"2 (p): - 'Settlement' means a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the cour